View Full Version : X-Pro 1 reviewed at DPReview
The X-Pro 1 has been (finally) reviewed in detail at DPReview:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/
The review seems generally positive and balanced, with criticisms mainly in the now well-known areas such as slow autofocus, usability of manual focus, some user interface concerns, and the observation that if you label your camera "Pro", you get compared to the pros.
It only got a few percent less overall score than the d800 and 5d mkIII. When fujifilm updates the firmware again and gets the camera going quicker still, it's going to be pretty funny seeing comparisons against the $3500 5d and $3000 d800....
Monochrom
06-29-2012, 06:58
Hi, interesting...but it seems teh x-pro lacks a fast and reliable autofocus...also the small sensor is not very apealing..canīt see no reason to get the x-pro over a leica x2....much lighter and smaller...
Iīm not impressed on the f1.4 capability...
Perhaps in the future will develop a fast and usable autofocus system taht can rival the rf manual settings...because manual focus once youīre skilled is as faster as a fast autofocus system...
cheers!
Moriturii
06-29-2012, 07:03
also the small sensor is not very apealing
:eek::eek::eek:
The sensor in the Fuji X Pro 1 is superior to any sensor Leica has ever shown, and it is generally speaking one of the top sensors out there today. So this comment is absolutely crazy.
The sensor in the X PRO 1 is VERY very good.
Hi, interesting...but it seems teh x-pro lacks a fast and reliable autofocus...also the small sensor is not very apealing..canīt see no reason to get the x-pro over a leica x2....much lighter and smaller...
Iīm not impressed on the f1.4 capability...
Perhaps in the future will develop a fast and usable autofocus system taht can rival the rf manual settings...because manual focus once youīre skilled is as faster as a fast autofocus system...
cheers!
It's genuinely not as bad as they say it is in terms of AF performance. Also, you should probably note they said the 35mm f1.4 was one of, if not the best 50mm lens they've ever had in there. A lot of guys in that office are leica users too.
Hi, interesting...but it seems teh x-pro lacks a fast and reliable autofocus...also the small sensor is not very apealing..canīt see no reason to get the x-pro over a leica x2....much lighter and smaller...
Iīm not impressed on the f1.4 capability...
Perhaps in the future will develop a fast and usable autofocus system taht can rival the rf manual settings...because manual focus once youīre skilled is as faster as a fast autofocus system...
cheers!
Fast AF today (pro-cameras, OM-D, Nikon V1 series) means focusing will be accomplished in less than 60 milliseconds, that is roughly 1/16th of a second (less than one-tenth).. This is the new standard these days.. (We can not do it manually.)
boomguy57
06-29-2012, 07:28
Does anyone know if the latest firmware addressed the AUTO-ISO issue (regarding setting a minimum shutter speed)?
A very fair & thorough review. The camera has some deficiencies but the stellar sensor performance and low weight make it a real winner. As does the 35/1.4 and the newly-announce lens roadmap. The performance of the 28/2 is satisfactory, particularly when the maximum aperture and near-pancake design are considered.
Boomguy, the AUTO-ISO behavior is still somewhat suboptimal. It would definitely be nice to lock in 1/250 or 1/500 without using shutter priority.
Also, my Fujifilm M-mount adaptor just shipped from B&H. :D I've mounted my ZM Biogons on the camera using other adaptors. I was happy with the image quality (some corner smearing but gorgeous color) but not with the mechanical quality of the Kipon adaptor that I previously had (that adaptor was, to put it charitably, poorly-machined garbage).
jsrockit
06-29-2012, 08:55
The performance of the 28/2 is satisfactory, particularly when the maximum aperture and near-pancake design are considered.
Exactly... not too many 28mm f/2 lenses out there for $600. CV is the only that I can think of.
Monochrom
06-29-2012, 10:01
Hi, many guys are talking about 28mm and 50mlenses...the x-pro has a n aps-c sensor...itīs not a full frame sensor...so in order to achieve filed of view they go back to wide angle settings in which you gain a lot of dof in comparison to the original 24x36 frame...donīt get confused....
the versatility of a real 28 or a real 50 is way beyond the ability fo a crop sensor...and fov lenses
If you get a 35mm lens from 2.8 on youīll get a huge dof from 10 feet on...also a 17-18 mm lens is almost absolute dof at f2 from a very short distance...
The 35mm lens of the fuji has a 1.4 aperture but i really canīt say if that can rival a c-sonnar or a summicron, or a planar in 50mm focal lenght. Also waht about spherical aberrations, the review showed that fuji has implemented a lot of software corrections...this may render the fuji very usable to show work on the net but not necessarily good for printing or other more demanding task...
The x-pro may achive focus in milliseconds only if the contrast of the subject is enough....so...in some point the fuji will eventually be faster than a skilled manual focus photog...but most of the time will not.
And clearly it wonīt be faster in one of the most used conditions... that being poor light or available light...
In terms on a better sensor it maybe...but no way it can rival a full frame sensor...thou very impressive the dynamic range ability....but how many software is applyed in camera???
Anyway is a fine looking handsome camera...surely it will be a huge success!!!
jsrockit
06-29-2012, 10:11
Also waht about spherical aberrations, the review showed that fuji has implemented a lot of software corrections...this may render the fuji very usable to show work on the net but not necessarily good for printing or other more demanding task...
I can assure you that prints from the Fujis are very nice. Not sure why you think we cannot make prints from this camera.
awbphotog
06-29-2012, 10:20
I can assure you that prints from the Fujis are very nice. Not sure why you think we cannot make prints from this camera.
Maybe he really wants one but doesn't want to admit it. His user ID is Monochrom, after all ;)
mabelsound
06-29-2012, 11:15
Hi, many guys are talking about 28mm and 50mlenses...the x-pro has a n aps-c sensor...itīs not a full frame sensor...so in order to achieve filed of view they go back to wide angle settings in which you gain a lot of dof in comparison to the original 24x36 frame...donīt get confused....
I don't think there is a single person on this entire messageboard who is confused about that.
willie_901
06-29-2012, 13:44
.......
In terms on a better sensor it maybe...but no way it can rival a full frame sensor...thou very impressive the dynamic range ability....but how many software is applyed in camera???
Software can not increase the dynamic range after the image is recorded. The dynamic range is an inherent property of the measurement system.
The Fuji DR setting overrides the exposure set by the meter or photographer to preserve highlight information. When the in-camera JPEG is rendered, the firmware lifts the shadow regions. But this does not increase the dynamic range. It just automatically attempts to render a JPEG where the inherent dynamic range is available to the viewer.
Maybe he really wants one but doesn't want to admit it. His user ID is Monochrom, after all ;)
Then he must be a Leica monochrom fan! ;-)
Sorry, couldn't resist it
Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner
SausalitoDog
06-29-2012, 16:08
Hi, interesting...but it seems teh x-pro lacks a fast and reliable autofocus...also the small sensor is not very apealing..canīt see no reason to get the x-pro over a leica x2....much lighter and smaller...
Iīm not impressed on the f1.4 capability...
Perhaps in the future will develop a fast and usable autofocus system taht can rival the rf manual settings...because manual focus once youīre skilled is as faster as a fast autofocus system...
cheers!
The x2 doesn't have the hybrid VF... Not in the same league for me.
Frankly I have not seen a camera in years cause manny comments or controversy as the x pro.
But I am of the opinion that if you have not taken the time to truly use one and find out what it's about, you really have no reason to comment.
If you can make a decision the cameras not for you without taking a turn at the wheel...fine then...go about your business and move on.
Just common curtesy...shooters here I have found to be pretty well rehearsed most of the time.
Aristophanes
06-29-2012, 16:21
The first 3 DP Review cons against it are:
focus
focus
focus
I have tried it a few times in the local shop and I simply cannot get over how, for a supposed RF-like experience, this camera has an inferior focus capability, especially for the price. The thing has an aura, but when you get right down to it, its focus capabilities are eclipsed by a DSLR at about the same size and 1/4 the cost.
It has a good sensor, but now they all do.
Yep
It's not perfect but certainly setting correctly helps as I found out after my first frustration with it
Then it changed for the good for me
I live with it and enjoy it but I can see why some others may not.
The review didn't tell me anything new
But for me the connection is there.
umcelinho
06-29-2012, 17:35
had the opportunity to handle an xpro1 this week at a shop for a couple minutes. AF was pretty much like my X100's, didn't feel any difference. Now, MF felt much better than the x100, much more well balanced. Camera is slightly heavier than the X100. Not bad. To try it in real life could lead to different conclusions though.. a friend actually bought one in NYC and did some shooting in the streets with the 35/1.4 and felt AF was missing many shots, so he decided it was not for him and returned it (he regularly shoots with an M9). At first I had a tough time with the X100, but then I got the hand of it... I think it'd be probably the same scenario. I'm waiting for the 23/1.4 to be out though, by then an M10 would be in the market, cheaper M9s.. we'll see :)
Jamie Pillers
06-29-2012, 22:28
I think folks are completely over-blowing the focusing issues with this camera. Auto-focus is plenty fast enough for any situation I've run into thus far. I don't have any more focus failures than with any other camera I've ever owned.
Manual focus? If you treat the X-100 or X-Pro1 as ZONE focusing cameras, they are superb. Use the AE-L/AF-L button for instant focus. Focusing with the lens focus ring is really designed only to provide super fine focusing (using the magnified view) for things like macro or portraits.
Jamie Pillers
06-29-2012, 22:31
No.. not yet. However it does give you a choice of how high you want to let the Auto-ISO to go. For example, you can set it to Auto-ISO(400), or (800), .. on up.
I think folks are completely over-blowing the focusing issues with this camera. Auto-focus is plenty fast enough for any situation I've run into thus far. I don't have any more focus failures than with any other camera I've ever owned.
Manual focus? If you treat the X-100 or X-Pro1 as ZONE focusing cameras, they are superb. Use the AE-L/AF-L button for instant focus. Focusing with the lens focus ring is really designed only to provide super fine focusing (using the magnified view) for things like macro or portraits.
Agreed 100%. The same talk applies to the x100, which in my opinion is a great AF-er. In fact I got more frustrated with my 5d/d300/e-3 than I do with my x100 - all of which had much much lower focussing accuracy. Once you've enabled the AF correction frame in the x100/xpro, when it says it's focused, it's 100% focussed. And using the manual focus as it's intended (zone focusing) it's really quite brilliant.
a friend actually bought one in NYC and did some shooting in the streets with the 35/1.4 and felt AF was missing many shots, so he decided it was not for him and returned it (he regularly shoots with an M9).
AF correction frame needs to be on, which was probably the problem there. Without it you're basically blind to parallax.
Archlich
06-29-2012, 23:16
- No face detection AF system
I apologize for my ignorance, but do the D4 and the 1Dx have face detection?
SausalitoDog
06-29-2012, 23:48
The focusing is SLOW, but the accuracy is fantastic.
Best used in manual focus, with "auto" AF button to approximate the focus - manual only to fine tune.
when discussing about reviews from DPreview and others, the "weakest link" (that's always there, no matter how good camera) turns to utter trash feature in these Internet boards. its then escalated in other threads by referring "yeah but that AF speed, that DP tested...". so occasional visitor sees choir of commentators who all seem to agree that "XPro1 has crap AF" (in this example). hard to put things into perspective these days...
when discussing about reviews from DPreview and others, the "weakest link" (that's always there, no matter how good camera) turns to utter trash feature in these Internet boards. its then escalated in other threads by referring "yeah but that AF speed, that DP tested...". so occasional visitor sees choir of commentators who all seem to agree that "XPro1 has crap AF" (in this example). hard to put things into perspective these days...
Exactly. It's like car reviewers when they review a car like any of the BMW sedans - they'll start off saying "this car handles beautifully - it's wonderfully sharp and is the best handling car in its class" and then in the very next paragraph they'll say something like "the ride is harsh and too firm unlike X competition which is lovely and supple." They don't acknowledge the fact that the reason why it's the best handling car in its class is BECAUSE it's more firm than the competition.
The x-pro is literally under a third of the cost of a 'pro' nikon or canon system, and has completely different design objectives - the DSLRs are made for versatility and speed, the x-pro is made for compact/lightweight/IQ balance, and a direct view (rangefinder like) experience. They don't mention in the conclusion 'pros' that it's less weight than an entry level DSLR with the IQ of a 7K pro dslr - they don't mention that all the lenses are top quality and a quarter of the weight of equivalent quality DSLR lenses - they don't mention that the optical finder is much nicer in some instances than a DSLR tunnel view VF.
Similarly, why so much mention of the 'oddities and glitches' of the x-pro1, when there is nothing of the sort in the Nikon d800 review, despite serious af problems widely documented with that camera (mis-focusses with outer AF points as per 'diglloyds' testing), lock ups, poorly calibrated screens, reports of exploding cameras etc.
bugmenot
06-30-2012, 00:54
- No face detection AF system
I apologize for my ignorance, but do the D4 and the 1Dx have face detection?
Surprisingly, yes. So does all the other so-called Professional and Prosumer cameras.
Surprisingly, yes. So does all the other so-called Professional and Prosumer cameras.
Only as far as metering and color sensors as far as I know, not face detection in terms of point and shoot appears in the VF style face detect.
Similarly, why so much mention of the 'oddities and glitches' of the x-pro1, when there is nothing of the sort in the Nikon d800 review, despite serious af problems widely documented with that camera (mis-focusses with outer AF points as per 'diglloyds' testing), lock ups, poorly calibrated screens, reports of exploding cameras etc.
Very true, and he didn't mention the light leaks on the new Canon either!
but the xpro is a niche camera, looking from a mainstream perspective it's only reasonable to point out its quirks. I don't thnk fuji fans should be too defensive. I have owned a hexar af for many years now, and over those years people would often slag it off for, say, the limited higher shutter speeds. But it's now acknowledged as a classic. fuji have made their mark and I would guess have outperformed their budgets - but some criticism would be a good thing, if it means they iron out more of those quirks.
Aristophanes
06-30-2012, 02:36
The x-pro is literally under a third of the cost of a 'pro' nikon or canon system, and has completely different design objectives - the DSLRs are made for versatility and speed, the x-pro is made for compact/lightweight/IQ balance, and a direct view (rangefinder like) experience. They don't mention in the conclusion 'pros' that it's less weight than an entry level DSLR with the IQ of a 7K pro dslr -
Comparing the FF models to the APS-C X-Pro is inaccurate in its own way.
The Fuji compares to a D7000. IQ is mostly sensore-derived and all models above $1,000 perform well. The X-Pro sensor is not better, frankly, than the D3200 sensor.
The Fuji weighs less, but can do less. Versatility and speed of DSLR's vs. a slightly smaller RF-like experience. Those are the trade-offs.
The Fuji compares to a D7000. IQ is mostly sensore-derived and all models above $1,000 perform well. The X-Pro sensor is not better, frankly, than the D3200 sensor.
The Fuji weighs less, but can do less. Versatility and speed of DSLR's vs. a slightly smaller RF-like experience. Those are the trade-offs.
Sorry, but no - LINK (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/25) - just select the d3200 as one of the comparison cameras, and move the dotted box around in the picture above to change what you see in the crops. You'll see the x-pro out resolves the d3200, is significantly less noisy at every ISO. And these are RAW files - the JPEGs will show an even greater difference in the x-pros favor. Dpreview themselves said it the sensor is compatible in IQ to the 5d mkIII.
Monochrom
06-30-2012, 06:04
Maybe he really wants one but doesn't want to admit it. His user ID is Monochrom, after all ;)
hahahha, maybe right :p but not really...in fact i love the m9 because i can set an elmar, collpase it and pocket the whole outfit...i wouldnīt go for th x-pro because the smaller sensor and the incapacity of collapsing a lens...so itīs larger in practical way...
I think the x100 and x-pro are very bold cameras in terms fuji dismisses mirrors...i firmly believe mirrors are no longer needed...they appeared to make things easier and to use zooms....but theyīve always been cumebrsome in every way...
since technology allow manufacturers to quit on mirrors the camera desing (people think) tends to be more like leicas...but i donīt think is necessarily true...i think desing tends to be more like"mirrorless", with smaller bodies also quitting huge lenses...
Itīs not by chance that canon and nikon are not developing and offering mirrorless systems such as fuji, they dont want to kill their mirrors...so iīm a fan of fuji...in the short term fuji will eventually make an af system that will rival those of the high end dsrlīs and then they will take over the market...as they are doing today in a smaller way...
Iīve epxerienced many AF cameras...and none were as accurate as a MF rangefinder camera...sorry to say that..the only camera that was faster and acc was the contax t3....but again we have 2.8 and wide angle lens (more base dof)
The other very fast camera was the sony nex but only with the pancake 16mm f2.8 lens, but again large dof from the beginning...
Lighter lenses and shorter lenses mean faster and acc autofocus...
The photofactory canon 5d that i once had was a fast devil in every sense...but it wasnīt usable on the streets...it was ike carrying a ball and chain attached to my ankle...
Cheers!
Aristophanes
06-30-2012, 08:48
Sorry, but no - LINK (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/25) - just select the d3200 as one of the comparison cameras, and move the dotted box around in the picture above to change what you see in the crops. You'll see the x-pro out resolves the d3200, is significantly less noisy at every ISO. And these are RAW files - the JPEGs will show an even greater difference in the x-pros favor. Dpreview themselves said it the sensor is compatible in IQ to the 5d mkIII.
Bu the D7000 and Pentax K-5 smoke the X-Pro from what I am seeing at all ISO's. And the performance above the D3200 is maybe not a $,1200 difference, considering the D3200 has faster, more reliable autofocus, in a $499 camera (w/kit lens).
I'm an early Fuji convert to their SuperCCD system and subsequent tweaks, and they make very good sensors. But it is not FF and it is no better than anything Sony puts out now (the D3200 is an Aptina sensor). Fuji does great JPEG's but switch to RAW and there's no advantage. I actually think the Sony sensors are 1/2 stop better.
You're paying for a unique, smaller package and VF experience with the Fuji over a sea of sameness in DSLR's, but you get similar AP-C sensor performance and worse AF. Make your choices but the X-Pro 1 is a compromise and to get there, you pay a solid $500 premium on the body alone.
I tried the Nikon V1 beside the X-Pro about 3 evenings ago at my local shop and the V1 with its hybrid AF is much, much faster and equally as accurate. I'll wait to try Fuji again when I see them move towards that superior tech.
Comparing the FF models to the APS-C X-Pro is inaccurate in its own way.
The Fuji compares to a D7000. IQ is mostly sensore-derived and all models above $1,000 perform well. The X-Pro sensor is not better, frankly, than the D3200 sensor.
The Fuji weighs less, but can do less. Versatility and speed of DSLR's vs. a slightly smaller RF-like experience. Those are the trade-offs.
But... so what? This is just like the infinitely tedious argument from SLR fans who maintain their camera is better than an RF. They're simply not comparable. It's like saying I should own a Ford Mondeo over a mini. I'm not going to, and I never will. (Own a Mondeo, and quite possibly a digital SLR, not unless they come in at the size of my old film SLRs).
Bu the D7000 and Pentax K-5 smoke the X-Pro from what I am seeing at all ISO's. And the performance above the D3200 is maybe not a $,1200 difference, considering the D3200 has faster, more reliable autofocus, in a $499 camera (w/kit lens).
I'm an early Fuji convert to their SuperCCD system and subsequent tweaks, and they make very good sensors. But it is not FF and it is no better than anything Sony puts out now (the D3200 is an Aptina sensor). Fuji does great JPEG's but switch to RAW and there's no advantage. I actually think the Sony sensors are 1/2 stop better.
You're paying for a unique, smaller package and VF experience with the Fuji over a sea of sameness in DSLR's, but you get similar AP-C sensor performance and worse AF. Make your choices but the X-Pro 1 is a compromise and to get there, you pay a solid $500 premium on the body alone.
I tried the Nikon V1 beside the X-Pro about 3 evenings ago at my local shop and the V1 with its hybrid AF is much, much faster and equally as accurate. I'll wait to try Fuji again when I see them move towards that superior tech.
Use that little comparison tool in the link I sent you. There's no way the k5 and d7000 are better. You can see it plainly in there. If you can't see it there must be something wrong with your eyes. Can you buy a pancake 18mm f2 for the d7000 and k5? Or a small/light 35mm f1.4? No? You can't compare the x-pro to a dslr, they're completely different concepts. The d3200 is $700 on b&h, not 500. I use d3100's at work a lot, and they're ergonomically akin to a dog turd. Once again, not nearly comparable.
The nikon v1 is even less comparable - I'm not even going to go there.
Aristophanes
06-30-2012, 16:44
Use that little comparison tool in the link I sent you. There's no way the k5 and d7000 are better. You can see it plainly in there. If you can't see it there must be something wrong with your eyes. Can you buy a pancake 18mm f2 for the d7000 and k5? Or a small/light 35mm f1.4? No? You can't compare the x-pro to a dslr, they're completely different concepts. The d3200 is $700 on b&h, not 500. I use d3100's at work a lot, and they're ergonomically akin to a dog turd. Once again, not nearly comparable.
Really?
Sensor: ISO 800, for middle of the spectrum on the referenced DP Review samples:
Fuji X-Pro 1
http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/4202492_5650992_161068952_Full_3/0_0_199194823dd0adae5a2206905a4d0778_7
Nikon D7000
http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/4202492_5650992_161068951_Full_3/0_0_58a0d2a69c4801acb312fdb9323ec442_7
Pentax K-5 (for good measure)
http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/4202492_5650992_161068941_Full_3/0_0_680726642bd30b0b6cbeb7c8832b2716_7
The Fuji sensor has great resolution and low overall chroma, lower than the other 2 models by a hair, but that proprietary mosaic demonstrates issues with colour fidelity, especially along narrow boundaries. Look at the word "Fujitsu". The Fuji sensor clearly bleeds into whites whereas the Sony sensor does not; those lines are discrete as they should be. Where the text should be bright white, it is pink on the Fuji samples.
There are other places on the DP Review shots where the Fuji sensor similarly bleeds, such as where it says "Tin Light" and "Mr. Robot" on the little Robot. The reds are muddy with blues on the Fuji, not at all on the Sony sensor.
In fact, the Fuji bleeds everywhere. Look at the transition along the perpendicular axis of the battery. On the Fuji the orange line distinctly changes from orange to grey. Not on the Sony sensor. The Fuji sensor has proximity issues.
But that's the way it has always been with Fuji sensors. The S5 was designed to smooth skin tones, and for all the low-light performance of the SuperCD series, they achieved that with some smearing effects, just as seen here.
The colour fidelity of the Sony sensor looks to be better at retaining the DR. Go up ISO and the difference increases in favour of the Sony chip. Look anywhere there is text or fine lines and the Fuji bleeds. I'd say that's a function of the sensor design itself.
Overall I'd also say the Sony sensor in either Pentax or Nikon is a modest 1/4 stop better in the shadows. But that's where the inferior chroma arises. Every sensor has its compromises.
Both are excellent sensors, but I value having whites white, not pink, because overall chroma can be handled beer in PP, but one a white has gone pink at the pixel level, I'm not getting it back unless I edit each pixel :mad: I also don't like line edge colour shifts. No amount of PP is getting those back.
I'm a big time Fuji fanboy currently sporting 3 models of their product line, but I'm not looking at a sensor with the X-Pro 1 that outpaces the competition, certainly not at $1,800. I'll leave the FF or 1" sensor comparisons out of this. It's not a class-leading sensor, but one that keeps pace with other APS-C cameras if you can deal with non-correctable colour bleeds and shifts.
So, no, nothing wrong with my eyes.
The major knock against the Fuji is poor AF for an AF-biased $1,800 camera (its MF is worse than some entry-level DSLR's). AF-biased cameras at less than 1/3 the price focus much faster be it DSLR or the V1. The sensor doesn't make up the difference with the compromises noted above, and pretty much every manufacturer puts out super-sharp primes. So the Fuji X-Pro 1 premium appears primarily to be for a unique VF experience, lots of old school control, and a modestly smaller kit.
Just an honest criticism using the same DP Review material and on track with the OP.
I don't think there is a single person on this entire messageboard who is confused about that.
People who are confused often mistakenly think that others are also confused.
The photofactory canon 5d that i once had was a fast devil in every sense...but it wasnīt usable on the streets...
I know some great street shooters who use 5D(I/II/II)'s working streets from the shopping districts of London to the shanties of Jakarta. More really good shooters than I know who use M9s and X-Pros combined, actually. In capable hands these are all outstanding tools capable of yielding superb results.
See my signature below.
Really?...
Many opinions here, relatively few facts. You're entitled to the opinions.
Aristophanes
06-30-2012, 18:15
Many opinions here, relatively few facts. You're entitled to the opinions.
The DP Review tests are designed to be factual data points. Their motive is journalistic and edited as such.
Do you not consider the findings of their sample shots to be factual?
The Fuji sensor at pixel level smears reds into whites, and generally mixes colours.
The Sony sensor does not, and in cameras far less expensive.
The price of the camera is also objective, but the cost to each individual is relative.
Each person can therefore make a subjective decision whether or not this is an $1,800 sensor.
Then balance all the facts about VF, bulk, lenses, etc.
That's the raisond'etre of DP Review whose editorial opinion is under scrutiny here.
Each person can therefore make a subjective decision whether or not this is an $1,800 sensor.
At work, I have paid $30,000 for a sensor -- a digital camera without optics or image processing pipeline or finder or autofucus or illumination systems. Those items can easily add another $100,000.
For pictorial photography, I have never purchased a sensor -- only complete cameras with lens mounts, finders, imaging pipelines, and other integrated systems. I use them to take photographs. A 5DIII is no more a $3000 sensor than an M6 is a roll of Tri-X.
The motive is largely artistic, not technical, and I evaluate cameras as whole systems, not as collections of component parts. The question is whether they are good tools for my photography. Currently I use an M6, an X-Pro1, and a several others. They all have strengths and weaknesses.
Perhaps your avocation is different than mine.
The Fuji sensor at pixel level smears reds into whites, and generally mixes colours.
How do you know that? Have you taken the trouble to look at the sensor-level data without an intermediary RAW developer or JPEG pipeline? If not, you have no idea whether you're looking at the characteristics of a sensor, or the characteristics of the downstream image processing pipeline (firmware + RAW development software).
The X-Pro sensor uses a new mosaic pattern, and hence the de-mosaicing algorithms for this sensor are still in development. In contrast the comparable algorithms for Beyer arrays are rather mature and settled, since the Beyer array has been around for many years now. It will be at least a couple of years before one can reasonably draw the sorts of conclusions that you seem to think you are drawing for the new array that Fuji is using.
back alley
06-30-2012, 20:11
seems like an endless argument...
Aristophanes
06-30-2012, 21:15
How do you know that? Have you taken the trouble to look at the sensor-level data without an intermediary RAW developer or JPEG pipeline? If not, you have no idea whether you're looking at the characteristics of a sensor, or the characteristics of the downstream image processing pipeline (firmware + RAW development software).
The X-Pro sensor uses a new mosaic pattern, and hence the de-mosaicing algorithms for this sensor are still in development. In contrast the comparable algorithms for Beyer arrays are rather mature and settled, since the Beyer array has been around for many years now. It will be at least a couple of years before one can reasonably draw the sorts of conclusions that you seem to think you are drawing for the new array that Fuji is using.
I simply downloaded Fuji's RAW data which all of us work with, including DP Review (and all current owners of the camera). The JPEG's show the same lack of colour fidelity as the RAW. So at least one level of processing error has been eliminated.
"Still in development" is getting close to being an apologist. Do you have access to Fuji's binary code? If not, your argument? That the colours are smearing because an algorithm was not ready for retail? Fuji's SuperCCD's demonstrated similar effects. Yes, I am inferring it's a sensor issue, but I would think that for a flagship product Fuji would have not let orange become grey, and white pink if there was a software fix, firmware or RAW. DPR used what Fuji gave them.
It's Fuji's complete product and their hardware/software chain towards IQ can't tell red from white as posted on the biggest online review site. I simply pointed to the evidence via journalistic testing and consumer evaluation. The market can decide through analyzing the samples provided.
The discussion at point is not whether Fuji will upgrade their firmware, it's about the DPR findings. If you don't pixel-peep because you are happy with the artistry, great. But if you do, then it looks like this sensor compromises colour where others do not. My concern is how this smearing is magnified in post. It sounds like you see the smearing as well and it is not an issue for you, and you hope some future firmware will correct it. We'll see if people's trust in Fuji prevails.
I really wanted to like this camera, but I think it's got issues, particularly at the price point. AF and sensor fidelity are concerns, both of which lag far less expensive cameras. The pent-up demand for an RF-like digital should not overwhelm competent analysis with the product as it is now at the price offered (and I think DPR gave it more credit than due in part because to its novel approach; they underweighted AF and IQ issues and overweighted the niche market idiosyncrasies). If you are personally willing to overlook these flaws for other reasons, or willing for Fuji to beta test on its early adopters, then that's your market choice.
"Still in development" is getting close to being an apologist. Do you have access to Fuji's binary code? If not, your argument? That the colours are smearing because an algorithm was not ready for retail? Fuji's SuperCCD's demonstrated similar effects. Yes, I am inferring it's a sensor issue, but I would think that for a flagship product Fuji would have not let orange become grey, and white pink if there was a software fix, firmware or RAW. DPR used what Fuji gave them.
And Fuji may not yet know how best to demosaic this pattern.
Beyer demosaicing is better now — much better — than it was five years ago, or ten. Beyer files developed with LR4 look different and considerably better than the exact same files did with LR1. And not everyone takes the same approach. RPP64 files look different yet again. We are looking at the VERY FIRST commercial product with the new Fuji array pattern, and your experience with SuperCCDs (these were Beyer CCD's, not random-array CMOS devices) is irrelevant to the present discussion, since we are dealing with both a wholly different electronic design and a different array pattern. What is relevant is that we're dealing with 1.0 versions of the demosaicing algorithms and there is clear and obvious room for improvement.
If you've been following the rapid progress (http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php?/topic/4553-raw-photo-processor-rpp-fuji-x-pro-1/) with the RPP64 algorithm, this is evident. The current RPP64 algorithm for the X-Pro sensor is far from perfect but worlds better than the other engines available — particularly ACR, which for the X-pro gives genuinely poor, really disappointing results on many files, and was clearly rushed to market. And the great progress with RPP64 has happened just over the last few weeks, driven by a single small software developer.
Unless you are looking at the raw data stream at the pixel level (NOT demosaiced files) you simply cannot say much about the inherent color discrimination capabilities of the sensor, particularly at the sub-array level of resolution. When you do this you are totally dependent on the demosaicing algorithm used. As I suspect you realize.
In terms of color accuracy over larger areas of the sensor, it appears to be reasonably competent (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-x-pro1/fuji-x-pro1A5.HTM), at least with the camera's in-built JPEG engine. This suggests that the sensor's intrinsic capabilities are satisfactory (note that the tests at Imaging Resource provide a lot more quantitative detail than those at DPR).
How good? Time will tell.
Semilog
I have been using jpg from the camera, is RPP64 now better than jpgs straight from the camera?
Thanks
Gary
Depends on what you're looking for. I like the JPEGs from the camera for most purposes, but RPP64 provides good control and nice rendering of fine detail. It's particularly useful when exposure or WB is not bang-on or a lot of tonal adjustment is required. For these files I'm developing in RPP64 to yield a LAB .tiff and then sharpening and doing final tonal adjustment in LR4.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7368989042_3b473c8d35_c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7368989042/)
DSCF0257-2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/semilog/7368989042/) by Semilog (http://www.flickr.com/people/semilog/), on Flickr
Thanks for the update Semilog. Looks like I need to give RPP64 a try.
Cheers
Gary
Thanks for the update Semilog. Looks like I need to give RPP64 a try.
Note that I've been using beta versions. Links for download are in this thread (http://www.fujix-forum.com/index.php?/topic/4553-raw-photo-processor-rpp-fuji-x-pro-1/).
icaro2007
06-30-2012, 22:57
The most recent beta version is available here
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/RPP64_1576Beta.zip
Thanks for the links.
Gary
Really?
Sensor: ISO 800, for middle of the spectrum on the referenced DP Review samples:
Fuji X-Pro 1
http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/4202492_5648210_161068952_Full_2/0_0_199194823dd0adae5a2206905a4d0778_7
Nikon D7000
http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/4202492_5648210_161068951_Full_2/0_0_58a0d2a69c4801acb312fdb9323ec442_7
Pentax K-5 (for good measure)
http://cdn-2-service.phanfare.com/images/external/4202492_5648210_161068941_Full_2/0_0_680726642bd30b0b6cbeb7c8832b2716_7
The Fuji sensor has great resolution and low overall chroma, lower than the other 2 models by a hair, but that proprietary mosaic demonstrates issues with colour fidelity, especially along narrow boundaries. Look at the word "Fujitsu". The Fuji sensor clearly bleeds into whites whereas the Sony sensor does not; those lines are discrete as they should be. Where the text should be bright white, it is pink on the Fuji samples.
There are other places on the DP Review shots where the Fuji sensor similarly bleeds, such as where it says "Tin Light" and "Mr. Robot" on the little Robot. The reds are muddy with blues on the Fuji, not at all on the Sony sensor.
In fact, the Fuji bleeds everywhere. Look at the transition along the perpendicular axis of the battery. On the Fuji the orange line distinctly changes from orange to grey. Not on the Sony sensor. The Fuji sensor has proximity issues.
But that's the way it has always been with Fuji sensors. The S5 was designed to smooth skin tones, and for all the low-light performance of the SuperCD series, they achieved that with some smearing effects, just as seen here.
The colour fidelity of the Sony sensor looks to be better at retaining the DR. Go up ISO and the difference increases in favour of the Sony chip. Look anywhere there is text or fine lines and the Fuji bleeds. I'd say that's a function of the sensor design itself.
Overall I'd also say the Sony sensor in either Pentax or Nikon is a modest 1/4 stop better in the shadows. But that's where the inferior chroma arises. Every sensor has its compromises.
Both are excellent sensors, but I value having whites white, not pink, because overall chroma can be handled beer in PP, but one a white has gone pink at the pixel level, I'm not getting it back unless I edit each pixel :mad: I also don't like line edge colour shifts. No amount of PP is getting those back.
I'm a big time Fuji fanboy currently sporting 3 models of their product line, but I'm not looking at a sensor with the X-Pro 1 that outpaces the competition, certainly not at $1,800. I'll leave the FF or 1" sensor comparisons out of this. It's not a class-leading sensor, but one that keeps pace with other APS-C cameras if you can deal with non-correctable colour bleeds and shifts.
So, no, nothing wrong with my eyes.
The major knock against the Fuji is poor AF for an AF-biased $1,800 camera (its MF is worse than some entry-level DSLR's). AF-biased cameras at less than 1/3 the price focus much faster be it DSLR or the V1. The sensor doesn't make up the difference with the compromises noted above, and pretty much every manufacturer puts out super-sharp primes. So the Fuji X-Pro 1 premium appears primarily to be for a unique VF experience, lots of old school control, and a modestly smaller kit.
Just an honest criticism using the same DP Review material and on track with the OP.
I can barely even see those 'color bleeds' in the crops you posted at 100% view, let alone in a web print or an actual print where you will never ever see them - I guarantee that much. The RRP raw processor has no color bleeding which shows that it's just the algorithm, not the sensor. It's basically a non-issue anyway unless you print little squares of 100% crops and look at them with a magnifying glass. The k-5 and d7000 are definitely noisier at every iso in both luminance and chroma.
jsrockit
07-02-2012, 03:56
As a X-Pro1 user (and X-1000 user), the AF is not fast with the 35mm 1.4 lens. If I try to use AF on the streets with moving people, it IS too slow at times. Additionally, I have had times where the AF has missed even with the corrected frame. The AF in both cams is easily tricked by reflections (in windows for example)...more so than any other camera I have or have used. I'm just being honest. I still love both cameras though...overall my best cameras.
I am glad the OP posted this. I haven't visited DPReview in a while; I have spent time checking it out over the last couple of days. I had been considering getting either an XPRo-1 or OM-D, so it was interesting to do the side by side compare of image quality.
I am very impressed with the Fuji at at the really high ISOs; it looks like by about ISO 1600 the chroma noise of the Oly is reaching a point where the Fuji looks better, even with less detail. After 1600 the Fuji shots are clearly usable and the Oly is probably too noisy. But it seems the Fuji may have gone a little heavy handed with the NR for low ISOs; maybe there is a better raw converter out there?
So, I decided to get the OM-D and ordered one yesterday. The image quality looks to be so close that the deciding factors were my existing m4/3s lenses (and the growing options to choose from), the AF speed, and the significant price difference. Now I'll see how impressed I am when the Oly arrives...
I am very impressed with the Fuji at at the really high ISOs; it looks like by about ISO 1600 the chroma noise of the Oly is reaching a point where the Fuji looks better, even with less detail. After 1600 the Fuji shots are clearly usable and the Oly is probably too noisy. But it seems the Fuji may have gone a little heavy handed with the NR for low ISOs; maybe there is a better raw converter out there?
It's not noise reduction that makes them look so smooth - it's a characteristic of the x-trans sensor with its random color array. Despite the low noise characteristic, it resolves the same detail as a 25ish MP full frame camera, so it's not 'smoothening' as it were.
It's not noise reduction that makes them look so smooth - it's a characteristic of the x-trans sensor with its random color array. Despite the low noise characteristic, it resolves the same detail as a 25ish MP full frame camera, so it's not 'smoothening' as it were.
Humm... where do you see that it matches the detail of a 25MP FF camera? Is there a good comparison review out there? (There may be, I don't spend a huge amount of time looking at reviews and probably wouldn't know about it.)
I do see that it doesn't have as much detail as a lot of other cameras in the DPReview shots, and they do indicate that "the X-Trans CMOS sensor includes a degree of chroma NR".
Thanks
It's not noise reduction that makes them look so smooth - it's a characteristic of the x-trans sensor with its random color array. Despite the low noise characteristic, it resolves the same detail as a 25ish MP full frame camera, so it's not 'smoothening' as it were.
My screen an eyes tell me that it resolves less details than a crop sensor 24MP NEX 7.
My screen an eyes tell me that it resolves less details than a crop sensor 24MP NEX 7.
In theory the difference should be ~22% in linear resolution — a rather minor difference. However, the folks at DP review say that in practice, they're about the same. The images I've seen corroborate that. Bottom line is that they're both superior APS-C sensors, albeit with slightly different strengths and weaknesses. I'd have no problem with an X-Pro1 body incorporating the NEX-7, or vice versa.
The differences in imaging performance are much smaller than operational differences between these cameras that actually make a difference for practical photography. One might say the same of the comparison between the NEX-7 and the Olympus EM-5, or for that matter between any of these cameras and a D700.
One of the things that really disappointed me about the Xpro, and it's a very shallow attitude on my part, :o is it's looks!
The X100 is a very special looking little camera that a lot of people commented on when I had it ... the Xpro is a black lump!
Humm... where do you see that it matches the detail of a 25MP FF camera? Is there a good comparison review out there? (There may be, I don't spend a huge amount of time looking at reviews and probably wouldn't know about it.)
I do see that it doesn't have as much detail as a lot of other cameras in the DPReview shots, and they do indicate that "the X-Trans CMOS sensor includes a degree of chroma NR".
Thanks
My screen an eyes tell me that it resolves less details than a crop sensor 24MP NEX 7.
From the DPreview resolution testing:
"There are several points to be made here. Firstly, the X-Pro1 shows visibly higher resolution in this chart test than a conventional 16MP Bayer-type camera such as the Nikon D7000, or even the Sony NEX-5N (which has a particularly weak AA filter). In fact, in terms of resolution it's very close indeed to the 24MP Sony NEX-7 or the Sigma SD1, which uses a 15MP Foveon X3 sensor to record full colour information at every pixel, and therefore (like the X-Pro1) uses no AA filter."
From the DPreview resolution testing:
"There are several points to be made here. Firstly, the X-Pro1 shows visibly higher resolution in this chart test than a conventional 16MP Bayer-type camera such as the Nikon D7000, or even the Sony NEX-5N (which has a particularly weak AA filter). In fact, in terms of resolution it's very close indeed to the 24MP Sony NEX-7 or the Sigma SD1, which uses a 15MP Foveon X3 sensor to record full colour information at every pixel, and therefore (like the X-Pro1) uses no AA filter."
Thanks I didn't see that, I was looking at the actual test images, where that doesn't seem to hold, from a practical perspective. But, I don't think those comparison cameras are full frame are they?
I did look around some to see if I could find actual tests showing the fuji out-performing a new FF camera. I wasn't able to find such a test, but I did see an interesting article (most here are probably familiar with it) by the guy at ChromaSoft who wrote corner fix and PhotoRaw. He seems very knowledgeable ( not surprising) and has concluded that the camera really doesn't live up to the marketing...
"So my conclusion is, sorry to say, that the Fuji X-Pro1 X-Trans sensor doesn't deliver the Fuji promise of outperforming similarly sized sensors. In fact, it underperforms similar DX sensored cameras - with the official SILKPIX raw developer, the underperformance is too slight to be noticeable under normal circumstances, but is still there if you look closely."
Like I said, I am sure most people interested in the camera is aware of the article. The focus of the article is the difficulty of converting the X-trans files, and he seems to imply that when it is finally done properly the quality and resolution should improve. Of course the article is over a month old, so the situation may have changed and there is actually a good converter out there now. But, it does look like he is right that the results don't yet live up to promises.
I would still like to see a direct comparison with the competition when a top quality conversion is available; it could be interesting. In the meantime, I'll try out the OM-D for a while and see if the Fuji situation changes; it may be one of the situations where it pays to wait for the next generation.
jsrockit
07-06-2012, 03:08
The X100 is a very special looking little camera that a lot of people commented on when I had it ... the Xpro is a black lump!
And you think the D700 is a looker? :)
Thanks I didn't see that, I was looking at the actual test images, where that doesn't seem to hold, from a practical perspective. But, I don't think those comparison cameras are full frame are they?
I did look around some to see if I could find actual tests showing the fuji out-performing a new FF camera. I wasn't able to find such a test, but I did see an interesting article (most here are probably familiar with it) by the guy at ChromaSoft who wrote corner fix and PhotoRaw. He seems very knowledgeable ( not surprising) and has concluded that the camera really doesn't live up to the marketing...
"So my conclusion is, sorry to say, that the Fuji X-Pro1 X-Trans sensor doesn't deliver the Fuji promise of outperforming similarly sized sensors. In fact, it underperforms similar DX sensored cameras - with the official SILKPIX raw developer, the underperformance is too slight to be noticeable under normal circumstances, but is still there if you look closely."
Like I said, I am sure most people interested in the camera is aware of the article. The focus of the article is the difficulty of converting the X-trans files, and he seems to imply that when it is finally done properly the quality and resolution should improve. Of course the article is over a month old, so the situation may have changed and there is actually a good converter out there now. But, it does look like he is right that the results don't yet live up to promises.
I would still like to see a direct comparison with the competition when a top quality conversion is available; it could be interesting. In the meantime, I'll try out the OM-D for a while and see if the Fuji situation changes; it may be one of the situations where it pays to wait for the next generation.
Yeah it's the same with any kind of sensor - the algorithms get better over time. For instance my 5ds files are significantly better than they were 3-4 years ago because adobe has significantly improved their algorithms. When you consider the JPEGS are currently slightly better than/similar to the raw files converted by adobe raw in outright detail, you realize theres definitely a lot of room for improvement, as the camera is just converting the raw data itself - in camera.
Anyway, I don't find any of the review sites samples to be that great - maybe check out some of the out of cam JPEGS from the fujifilm website? (links to some below)
sample 1 (http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/common/images/gallery/sample-images/60mm/ff_x_pro1_60_019.JPG)
sample 2 (http://fujifilm-x.com/x-pro1/common/images/gallery/sample-images/60mm/ff_x_pro1_60_018.JPG)
To me, there is nothing left wanting in the amount of detail in these files. It's completely natural, there's no m4/3s style halo sharpening (that I'm really sensitive to - other people don't seem to see it), and it's smooth and subtle. I would place it similar to a 5d2 - which is similar to the 5d3. That's just me personally.
Yeah it's the same with any kind of sensor - the algorithms get better over time. For instance my 5ds files are significantly better than they were 3-4 years ago because adobe has significantly improved their algorithms. When you consider the JPEGS are currently slightly better than/similar to the raw files converted by adobe raw in outright detail, you realize theres definitely a lot of room for improvement, as the camera is just converting the raw data itself - in camera.
I agree, that old files can be improved with improved software. In fact my GH2 shots' noise can be much better with LR 4 than before. I think my problem is that I continue to fall for the marketing and internet hype when an innovative camera comes out; I remember being excited to get a 1Ds (first version!) because it was better than 6x7. I should have learned by now, that improvements have proven to be evolutionary, not revolutionary! I agree that the XPro produces good files, but I can't help but think that all the buzz about it beating new FF cameras is over the top - at least until there are good comparisons to view, or I just buy one and see for myself (not beyond the realm of possibility).
To me, there is nothing left wanting in the amount of detail in these files. It's completely natural, there's no m4/3s style halo sharpening (that I'm really sensitive to - other people don't seem to see it), and it's smooth and subtle. I would place it similar to a 5d2 - which is similar to the 5d3. That's just me personally.I know what you mean everyone, including me, has to decide for themselves and rationalize their decisions. The thing that I am most sensitive to about certain cameras, like the fuji, is when noise is reduced and takes detail along with it. I guess being a long time film shooter (and an M9 owner), I would rather have a little noise and more detail, than noiseless, too smooth images. But I can see how others would place a very high value on low noise, High ISO images. Those samples do look good.
Regarding the halos, I never shoot jpgs, so I control sharpening on my M4/3s camera, so if there are halos, it's my fault.
I...think that all the buzz about it beating new FF cameras is over the top - at least until there are good comparisons to view, or I just buy one and see for myself (not beyond the realm of possibility).
Of course that's over the top, and I wouldn't take anyone seriously who's making such a claim. What the X-Pro1 does do is more or less equal the FF cameras (D700, 5DI/II/III) in resolution, DR, and in low light performance, and it beats all but a few of the current APS-C sensors (the one in the NEX-7 being the obvious standard of comparison).
It does all this while costing a bit more than half of what a 5DIII does, in a smaller and lighter body with an outstanding and genuinely innovative viewfinder. That's pretty cool, I think. Bottom line is that for practical photography the 5D's, the NEX-7, the D7000, the X-Pro are all on par and have different strengths and weaknesses in operational terms, different quirks, take different lenses, etc.
Now, all that said, if you're interested in this stuff, Falk Lumo's latest white paper (http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/ff.html) on what FF really means provides a great deal of food for thought. Lumo is a physicist who was first to report (correctly) that the Pentax K-x -- the first camera to use the EXMOR sensor later used in the D7000 -- had essentially equalled the D700 for image quality. He thinks that with the Nikon D600 we're about to see a major re-shuffling of the DSLR market. I bet he's right.
I agree, that old files can be improved with improved software. In fact my GH2 shots' noise can be much better with LR 4 than before.
Right, and consider that the GH2 uses a Beyer array -- at this point a highly mature technology -- while the X-Pro1 is using a brand new array. It's going to take time to really optimize the de-mosaicing.
A real concern that I have with the Fuji tech is that since everyone else uses Beyer, the software R&D effort is focused there. The Fuji array is a niche market for software developers and simply won't get as much attention. My hope is that development of good de-mosaicing software will be done as a consequence of it simply being an interesting technical problem, and thus a market-independent nerd-attractor. To some extent that seems to be happening.
Fuji could really speed this process if they would just release an SDK. That they have not indicates that they are in at least one crucial respect really missing the boat.
Of course that's over the top, and I wouldn't take anyone seriously who's making such a claim.
Well, at the time it was a very well respected, and of course hated, internet blogger, guru, expert. And then there was the claim that the M8 could produce large prints (20 X something) that matched 4x5. (I knew better in this one since I had both systems).
What the X-Pro1 does do is more or less equal the FF cameras (D700, 5DI/II/III) in resolution, DR, and in low light performance, and it beats all but a few of the current APS-C sensors (the one in the NEX-7 being the obvious standard of comparison).
That us just what I am looking for evidence of, rather than just the claims! If that is true then it should be easy to show a clear comparison. I may have missed it, but the ones I see indicate that is not the case. And at least one very reliable source claims that the opposite is true in practical terms. I am very open to seeing and acknowledging the real world advantages of the camera.
Put it this way. The X-Pro1 and NEX-7 sensors appear to have rather well-matched performance overall -- I think it safe to say that these are the current top-of-the heap in APS-C. And the quantitative tests indicate that the NEX-7 sensor is on par with (say) the D700 for DR, sensitivity, and resolution.
As Falk Lumo points out, now we have to deal with the implementation: the lenses used, the focus accuracy, etc. In other words, we have to deal with the throughput of the whole imaging chain and not just the sensor. At that level, smaller sensors thend to be harder to implement. For example, the position and alignment of sensor vs. lens is more critical.
In addition, really objective testing is, as Ctein has pointed out, really, really hard to do well. Even with a standard scene as DPR uses, it's very very very hard to equalize FOV, keep the lighting constant, deal with the varying curvature of field of the different lenses that must be used for different cameras (i.e., where do you put the focus point), etc.
What the results from several places -- DPR, Imaging Resource, etc. -- say is that in practical terms the best APS-C cameras (including but not limited to the X-Pro), when fitted with good lenses, can equal the current generation of FF cameras in most respects. And it is therefore foolish to choose among all of these cameras based (solely) on the sensor. Other factors are going to be more definitive.
The D800 may (for resolution) be half a generation ahead of the rest, just as the OM-D EM5 appears to be half a generation ahead of the other ĩ4/3 cameras at present.
My rule of thumb is that the sensor area and/or number of pixels has to change by a factor of two for there to be an interesting/useful difference in image quality (square root of 2 = 1.4x difference in linear print size; 1.2x differences in linear print size are too minor for me to care about).
Thus the difference between APS-C and m4/3, or the difference between APS-C and FF, is not interesting. But the difference between FF and ĩ4/3 (2x) may be apparent and useful, assuming rough parity in sensor technology.
Right, and consider that the GH2 uses a Beyer array -- at this point a highly mature technology -- while the X-Pro1 is using a brand new array. It's going to take time to really optimize the de-mosaicing.
A real concern that I have with the Fuji tech is that since everyone else uses Beyer, the software R&D effort is focused there. The Fuji array is a niche market for software developers and simply won't get as much attention. My hope is that development of good de-mosaicing software will be done as a consequence of it simply being an interesting technical problem, and thus a market-independent nerd-attractor. To some extent that seems to be happening.
Fuji could really speed this process if they would just release an SDK. That they have not indicates that they are in at least one crucial respect really missing the boat.
You make a good point about the maturity of mainstream sensors ( I think they are Bayer sensors, FWIW) and the focus of developers. It is something to consider. I am just surprised that Fuji hadn't figured it out prior to releasing the system. The work done by Sandy McGuffog was along the lines you anticipate - trying to rise to challenge. Maybe Fuji will prove more supportive as you say, an SDK with the right (efficient and accurate) methods could be released and we would see a lot of competion to get out products.
Put it this way. The X-Pro1 and NEX-7 sensors appear to have rather well-matched performance overall -- I think it safe to say that these are the current top-of-the heap in APS-C. And the quantitative tests indicate that the NEX-7 sensor is on par with (say) the D700 for DR, sensitivity, and resolution.
As Falk Lumo points out, now we have to deal with the implementation: the lenses used, the focus accuracy, etc. In other words, we have to deal with the throughput of the whole imaging chain and not just the sensor. At that level, smaller sensors thend to be harder to implement. For example, the position and alignment of sensor vs. lens is more critical.
In addition, really objective testing is, as Ctein has pointed out, really, really hard to do well. Even with a standard scene as DPR uses, it's very very very hard to equalize FOV, keep the lighting constant, deal with the varying curvature of field of the different lenses that must be used for different cameras (i.e., where do you put the focus point), etc.
What the results from several places -- DPR, Imaging Resource, etc. -- say is that in practical terms the best APS-C cameras (including but not limited to the X-Pro), when fitted with good lenses, can equal the current generation of FF cameras in most respects. And it is therefore foolish to choose among all of these cameras based (solely) on the sensor. Other factors are going to be more definitive.
The D800 may (for resolution) be half a generation ahead of the rest, just as the OM-D EM5 appears to be half a generation ahead of the other ĩ4/3 cameras at present.
My rule of thumb is that the sensor area and/or number of pixels has to change by a factor of two for there to be an interesting/useful difference in image quality (square root of 2 = 1.4x difference in linear print size; 1.2x differences in linear print size are too minor for me to care about).
Thus the difference between APS-C and m4/3, or the difference between APS-C and FF, is not interesting. But the difference between FF and ĩ4/3 (2x) may be apparent and useful, assuming rough parity in sensor technology. I understand the claims involve the theoretical potential of the camera, and the transitive logic of comparison with similar cameras with proper converters. I don't discount that logic, but for taking photos today, it might prove frustrating.
The OM-D may be half a generation ahead of the leaders in M4/3s, but the more I compare, the less real advantages I see in IQ. I mentioned that I ordered one and it is on its way; I am now second guessing whether it is worthwhile as an upgrade to my GH2. And comparing the 2 to the Nex or Fuji, I see little advantage - so I agree that selecting the next size sensor is probably not worth the trouble and expense.
It will be interesting to check in in 6 months to see what the situation is with Fuji....
The OM-D may be half a generation ahead of the leaders in M4/3s, but the more I compare, the less real advantages I see in IQ.
If as reported it's a Sony sensor the differences will be most evident in terms of DR and especially DR at high ISO. At native ISO the 8 megapixel Kodak CCD in my old Oly E-500 still looks shockingly, gobsmackingly good for 4-generation-old tech... but push past ISO 400 and it just completely falls apart. It's at the edges of the performance envelope that the newer sensors really strut their stuff.
I like the X-Pro sensor, but I will admit that I am a Sony sensor partisan. This is based on over a decade of extremely positive experiences with Sony interline CCDs in scientific applications. CCDs that Sony started shipping over 12 years ago have only in the last year been eclipsed for price-performance by the very newest CMOS devices.
Audii-Dudii
07-06-2012, 11:56
The OM-D may be half a generation ahead of the leaders in M4/3s, but the more I compare, the less real advantages I see in IQ. I mentioned that I ordered one and it is on its way; I am now second guessing whether it is worthwhile as an upgrade to my GH2. And comparing the 2 to the Nex or Fuji, I see little advantage - so I agree that selecting the next size sensor is probably not worth the trouble and expense.
I can't speak to the GH2's IQ, but I have a GX1, and based upon the handful of side-by-side comparisons I've made between it and the X-Pro1, there does appear to be a slight, but distinct and noticeable, difference in IQ between them, with the advantage to Fuji (IMO, anyway.)
That said, my interest in the X100 and X-Pro1 has more to do with their traditonial-style form-factors than it does their IQ. For the same reason I made my initial foray into digital capture via the Panasonic DMC-LC1, Leica Digilux 2, and Panasonic DMC-L1, and more recently, chose to build my medium-format digital outfit around the Contax 645 body instead of any of the more modern, still in production alternatives, I find a significant degree of satisfaction in working with cameras that rely upon traditional external controls (shutter speed dial on the top plate, aperture ring on the lens, etc.) and to an extent, their IQ is slightly less important to me.
I like to think I'm not a complete Luddite, as I find that autofocus (implemented well, both in procedure and practice) has its place, and I actually prefer to focus and compose with an LCD versus a viewfinder (optical and electronic), but for the same reason I pointed out above, I skipped several generations of 35mm SLRs from the mid-'80s on because I simply didn't like how they felt in my hands or the non-intuitive (for me!) process of working with them.
Which brings me to my point: The slight IQ improvement that I see when comparing the files from my X-Pro1 to my GX1 is merely a lagniappe, as the reason I made the switch from one to the other is due, first and formost, to the X-Pro1's form-factor, not its performance. And in that respect, it hasn't disappointed me in the slightest! :)
^---- Lucid and sensible. Right on.
I can't speak to the GH2's IQ, but I have a GX1, and based upon the handful of side-by-side comparisons I've made between it and the X-Pro1, there does appear to be a slight, but distinct and noticeable, difference in IQ between them, with the advantage to Fuji (IMO, anyway.)
That said, my interest in the X100 and X-Pro1 has more to do with their traditonial-style form-factors than it does their IQ. For the same reason I made my initial foray into digital capture via the Panasonic DMC-LC1, Leica Digilux 2, and Panasonic DMC-L1, and more recently, chose to build my medium-format digital outfit around the Contax 645 body instead of any of the more modern, still in production alternatives, I find a significant degree of satisfaction in working with cameras that rely upon traditional external controls (shutter speed dial on the top plate, aperture ring on the lens, etc.) and to an extent, their IQ is slightly less important to me.
I like to think I'm not a complete Luddite, as I find that autofocus (implemented well, both in procedure and practice) has its place, and I actually prefer to focus and compose with an LCD versus a viewfinder (optical and electronic), but for the same reason I pointed out above, I skipped several generations of 35mm SLRs from the mid-'80s on because I simply didn't like how they felt in my hands or the non-intuitive (for me!) process of working with them.
Which brings me to my point: The slight IQ improvement that I see when comparing the files from my X-Pro1 to my GX1 is merely a lagniappe, as the reason I made the switch from one to the other is due, first and formost, to the X-Pro1's form-factor, not its performance. And in that respect, it hasn't disappointed me in the slightest! :)
I am basically in the same camp. Which sensor is better does not matter to me, I wanted a camera that was back to basics. The Fuji x 100 and xp1 cameras provided it.. On the plus side was the high iso performance.
I use the Ricoh gxr w/ m module for the same reason, back to basics. I still use it for all legacy lenses... I have an m adapter for the Fuji xp1 but overall the gxr still handles better. If Fuji brings in some variation of focus peaking, then my answer may change.
Gary
Going back to basics or a particular form factor, now those are reasons no one can argue with - personal choice!
CK Dexter Haven
07-06-2012, 13:34
I don't want to argue the point, but how is an XPro1 or X100 "back to basics?" Don't these cameras offer the same features as a D800 or 5DMkIII? But, more, since they have hybrid viewfinders?
I get that they look like 50 year old rangefinders in some sense, but isn't that just costuming? They're every bit as full-featured and complex as the top-spec dSLRs. Is it merely that they have aperture rings around the lenses, and shutter dials on the top deck? Is it really that simple?
SausalitoDog
07-06-2012, 13:59
CK -
You are more or less right. But the "costuming" is a large factor in the use. Size, shape, feel... All contribute to how one is used. These cameras won't replace DSLRs for many things (sports, wildlife, any fast moving subjects etc) but they are fantastic "walkaround" cameras for street photos and yet they still have some ability beyond the odd grab-shot.
Maybe the "back to basics" has more to do with HOW people are using them than what they are capable of.
Tom
I don't want to argue the point, but how is an XPro1 or X100 "back to basics?" Don't these cameras offer the same features as a D800 or 5DMkIII? But, more, since they have hybrid viewfinders?
I get that they look like 50 year old rangefinders in some sense, but isn't that just costuming? They're every bit as full-featured and complex as the top-spec dSLRs. Is it merely that they have aperture rings around the lenses, and shutter dials on the top deck? Is it really that simple?
We each have our own ideas of what basic is all about. I take pictures with folders as old as the 1930's as well.. And u can't get anymore basic then that:)
But when it comes to digital cameras, at the end of the day, I don't want to remember which button is for what or which menu to use to get to your basic functions like shutter speed or aperture.
Weight, ovf, and form factor make up the other reasons.
The rd1 is as close the back to basics as u can get. But my eyesight is not as good as it used to be..
Today's dslr's are every bit as good as the Fuji cameras at a price points that are less.. Canon and Nikon have the advantage In terms of economy of scale that Fuji does not. Over time for reason most likely associated w/ cost and reliability the controls such as aperture and shutter speed have disappeared.
If u feel it is costuming, I think u maybe missing the point. Gone are the days of glancing down to double check shutter speed, aperture and exposure compensation before bringing the camera up to take the picture. And yes u can tip the camera over to check the lcd info in a lot of cameras. Even the digital ps originally had a ovf of some sort such as Canon G series.
My favorite 35mm film camera was really the Contax g2 not the Leica M and not the Nikon SLR, the xp1 so far comes the closest to the Contax of any digital camera....
Gary
PS. I forgot to mention that for me part of back to basics is making these controls that I use all the time available right at my finger tip. So yes as sausalito dog said it is really more about the way I use it and my expected handling characteristics...
Audii-Dudii
07-06-2012, 14:27
Is it merely that they have aperture rings around the lenses, and shutter dials on the top deck? Is it really that simple?
Yeah, believe it or not, but it's really that simple.
For me, the aperture and focus rings on the lens and the shutter-speed and exposure compensation dials on the top plate account for perhaps 90% of the rationale why I bought mine. (Mind you, this is because the high IQ was a given; if the sensor and processing pipeline were a complete turd, though, then I probably would have passed.)
I don't deny this is a completely irrational desire on my part, but the bottom line is that I want a camera that I can operate entirely by feel alone. I want a camera that instantly communicates to me how it's setup without my having to actually look at it. And I want to be able to adjust the aperture or shutter speed without ever looking at the camera, either. (I would also like to be able to focus it without ever looking at the LCD or through the viewfinder, but I guess that will have to wait for another day...)
I want it to be light enough so that I can carry it in my hand all day (I prefer wrist straps to neck straps) and small enough so that I can easily travel with it. I also don't need (and would prefer not to pay for) multiple focus points, fancy metering schemes, or the ability to capture video.
Lastly, because I'm a wide-angle kinda guy, I want a camera that offers (or will offer in short order) a selection of several prime lenses that are shorter than normal for the format.
So why didn't I buy an M9, you ask? Easy ... because I don't like the 3:2 format, I like to compose and focus using the LCD, and because I already have too much money invested in my Contax 645/P30+ outfit. For the money I saved buying an X-Pro1 instead of an M9, I'll live with the 3:2 format and the features I don't need (so long as they remain invisible to me). And if I ever drop it and break it or have it stolen from me while I'm photographing in a seedy part of town ... well, it will hurt a little bit, to be sure, but not enough to make me cry.
For all of the above reasons and more, this is why I bought my X-Pro1 and not a D800 or 5DIII. (And if you're curious to see what I've been doing with it, check out the last month or two worth of posts at my photoblog: http://audiidudii.aminus3.com/)
How would you compare this camera with a Leica M8?
Audii-Dudii
07-06-2012, 14:45
How would you compare this camera with a Leica M8?
I don't know which "you" you're referring to, but for me, the M8's sensor simply didn't have enough IQ (or pixels) to make prints of the size I like for the type of photo I would capture with it (i.e., 9x12) with the level of quality that I insist upon. It was also missing LiveView and required the use of an external finder for many of the lenses I would use with it, which I find to be problematic.
But that's just me and my quality standard threshold. I know there are many, many people who will claim that an M8 will print just fine at that size (or larger!) and for them, they're no doubt correct.
But IMO, even my P30+ with its 31MP files will only rarely capture files that I am willing to print larger than 15x20, so I'm an equal-opportunity nit-picker. :)
(Oh and did I mention that prior to switching to digital capture, I was shooting color transparencies with an 8x10 view camera? Perhaps this explains my abnormally high quality standard relative to most photographers?)
I assumed Raid was asking u as well :)
Gary
I was more referring to the title of this thread.
Fuji X Pro 1. Is it that much better than the M8?
:eek::eek::eek:
The sensor in the Fuji X Pro 1 is superior to any sensor Leica has ever shown, and it is generally speaking one of the top sensors out there today. So this comment is absolutely crazy.
The sensor in the X PRO 1 is VERY very good.
So you would say that because the sensor is better that the camera is better overall or are there other factors to consider here?
Is the Fuji X Pro 1 overall a better digital camera than the M8? This is what I want to know from people who have used both cameras.
So you would say that because the sensor is better that the camera is better overall or are there other factors to consider here?
Is the Fuji X Pro 1 overall a better digital camera than the M8? This is what I want to know from people who have used both cameras.
Why don't you go to the DPReview site and do an image comparison between the M9 and the Fuji (I don't think you can directly compare with an M8)? You may want to compare the M9 raw with the Fuji jpg, since the raw Fuji is not that great. That may tell you a lot about the confidence people have in the Fuji vs its actual performance ( excluding new software developments).
As for which camera best? Come on... :bang:
mabelsound
07-07-2012, 02:13
I was more referring to the title of this thread.
Fuji X Pro 1. Is it that much better than the M8?
Certainly not for M lenses, but taken on its own terms, and using its native lenses, I would say, for me, yes.
It's also important to think of "image quality" in more than one dimension. There's DR, color fidelity, high ISO noise (chroma, luminance, random, pattern), resolution, performance with wide lenses...
Saying one camera is better than another in general -- rather than under a specific set of conditions -- is usually a useless thing to do, and muddies rather than clarifies the discussion. For example, with the X-Pro1 I find myself shooting at ISO 3200 a lot of the time. That is not a comparison that would be favorable to the M9. On the other hand, I mount both native and ZM lenses on the camera, and it's a certainty that (except in the center of the field) the M9 would provide higher resolution with the non-native lenses, at least at moderate ISO settings.
It's also important to think of "image quality" in more than one dimension. There's DR, color fidelity, high ISO noise (chroma, luminance, random, pattern), resolution, performance with wide lenses...
Saying one camera is better than another in general -- rather than under a specific set of conditions -- is usually a useless thing to do, and muddies rather than clarifies the discussion. For example, with the X-Pro1 I find myself shooting at ISO 3200 a lot of the time. That is not a comparison that would be favorable to the M9. On the other hand, I mount both native and ZM lenses on the camera, and it's a certainty that (except in the center of the field) the M9 would provide higher resolution with the non-native lenses, at least at moderate ISO settings.
Well, all this discussion (and "hypification" :angel:) has gotten to me, in spite of my good intentions.
I am finalizing a trade for an Xpro and 18 and 60, so I can see for myself. I looked at some of the results over at GetDPI and they really look good and one guy is doing some nice Astro work and another doing some IR - I hadn't considered those possibilities with the XPRO's style of filtering.
Then I can try beta Raw processors to my heart's content. If all the speculation pans out, I guess I can sell my Leica digital and have some cash to boot!
RPP64 version 4.6.0 is released (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/News/News.html), no longer beta.
I still see some edge artifacts but they've been largely removed and overall this is the best RAW converter I've used for X-P1 files. I am optimistic that RAW conversion for this camera will continue to improve.
RPP64 version 4.6.0 is released (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/News/News.html), no longer beta.
I still see some edge artifacts but they've been largely removed and overall this is the best RAW converter I've used for X-P1 files. I am optimistic that RAW conversion for this camera will continue to improve.
Thanks for the update
Gary
RPP64 version 4.6.0 is released (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/News/News.html), no longer beta.
I still see some edge artifacts but they've been largely removed and overall this is the best RAW converter I've used for X-P1 files. I am optimistic that RAW conversion for this camera will continue to improve.
That's good to know - it does put a cramp in my personal workflow, though. I use a PC for photo and video processing and now I'll have to use our Mac just for Fuji files. Hopefully that is a temporary situation.
Sounds like u picked up the Fuji. Will be interesting to hear your thoughts about it after checking it out....
Cheers
Gary
aeturnum
07-10-2012, 09:14
In fact, the Fuji bleeds everywhere. Look at the transition along the perpendicular axis of the battery. On the Fuji the orange line distinctly changes from orange to grey. Not on the Sony sensor. The Fuji sensor has proximity issues.
But that's the way it has always been with Fuji sensors. The S5 was designed to smooth skin tones, and for all the low-light performance of the SuperCD series, they achieved that with some smearing effects, just as seen here.
Though this is a little old, and people have talked generally about the demosaicing algorithm, here's a blog post that goes into detail (http://chromasoft.blogspot.de/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x-trans.html) about the X-PRO's sensor and the challenges it offers.
If you go back to the studio scene (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/25) and switch from RAW to JPEG, the color smearing vanishes. To me, that says the Adobe RAW converter is at fault (rather than the underlying sensor). That being said, "the camera will be better in the future," is a very lame argument. The X-PRO currently has problems with color smearing, but that will probably not always be the case.
Sounds like u picked up the Fuji. Will be interesting to hear your thoughts about it after checking it out....
Cheers
Gary
My fuji set should be here Thursday. I'll report back.
Aristophanes
07-10-2012, 19:03
Though this is a little old, and people have talked generally about the demosaicing algorithm, here's a blog post that goes into detail (http://chromasoft.blogspot.de/2012/05/demosaicing-fuji-x-pro1-and-its-x-trans.html) about the X-PRO's sensor and the challenges it offers.
If you go back to the studio scene (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/25) and switch from RAW to JPEG, the color smearing vanishes. To me, that says the Adobe RAW converter is at fault (rather than the underlying sensor). That being said, "the camera will be better in the future," is a very lame argument. The X-PRO currently has problems with color smearing, but that will probably not always be the case.
My samples posted were from the JPEGs.
Why RAW conversions has turned into a hobby effort is odd if Fuji is trying to sell a relatively expensive camera system. Whether the mosaic structure of the Fuji sensor is to blame or the software, it's just visible confusion in an art form that likes its colours to be what nature intended. If you love the form factor and can overlook these sensor issues, perhaps waiting for a software patch to plug the holes, then all the power to you.
I just want to follow up on my earlier comments and skepticism regarding the X-Pro 1. (Note that I posted this as a separate post last week, but the thread was instantly crapped, so I took it down).
I have had an X-Pro kit for over a week and I have to say I really like it. I think it handles very well, and if you are careful you can focus it accurately most of the time with the OVF. If the situation is iffy (like focusing on a small object with a fairly detailed background), it so easy to switch to the EVF and get much more accurate focus with a small focusing box. The 35mm is really great, and the 18 is pretty good too, though I keep the 35 on most of the time. I have the grip and that really helps the handling as well, IMO.
Of course, I was skeptical that it could live up to the hype, and so far it hasn't quite managed to in the image quality department. The quality is really good, but not fully up to matching FF, with the convertors I have been able to use (RPP, LR, SilkyPix, and Helicon Filter/DCRAW) M9 shots have noticeably more detail and better color (of course this can be adjusted), but the X-Pro1 is a little better than the OM-D. (Comparing the FX 35mm, 50 Elmar-M, 25 PanLeica 1.4) Could this change if better convertors are developed? Sure, but it is good enough for me now as is; in fact I am just bought a 60mm Friday, so I'm as committed as I can be.
But the biggest problem the camera has to me is the out of focus OVF/EVF - it looks like mounting the proper diopter to adjust the EVF, would throw off the OVF, right? The OVF is in fine focus, but the EVF needs about +1.25 for me (tested with reading glasses.) It looks like this is just a "live with it " type of thing. I welcome any suggestions on solving this with diopters, or anything else.
Anyway, overall I feel this is a great camera for me; quirks don't bother me that much. It won't replace my M9, but if I had an M8 it sure could. Next I may try to get the M Adapter.
willie_901
07-23-2012, 04:33
Thanks for the thoughtful and comprehensive update. I think your comments are accurate and balanced.
The camera has certain advantages and disadvantages like every other camera that's been introduced recently. For me the advantages are much greater that the disadvantages, so I'm a happy owner too. I'm looking forward to the 56/1.4. I may get the new 23 mm lens next year too.
I use mono-vision contact lenses (left for reading, right for distance). So I use one eye for the EVF and one for the OVF. I realize this solution is rather limited, but it works for me.
SausalitoDog
07-23-2012, 10:36
. I have the grip and that really helps the handling as well, IMO.
I welcome any suggestions on solving this with diopters, or anything else.
Next I may try to get the M Adapter.
- I have the ThumbsUp instead of the grip - you might want to try one of them - they have now made one specifically for the xp1 and it just slides into the hot shoe and fits very nicely but can be removed easily to insert a flash (no tools needed as with prior version)
- I bought a diopter before I knew anything about them - I'm not even sure what strength it was but think it may be a 2+ so I just use the VF without my glasses (which means the screens are tough to read without glasses but I'm learning to adjust without moving eye from VF).
- My next step (if there is a next one; I like the 35mm so much that everything else isn't really getting used) might be an M adapter and buying a low priced 28mm Leica lens to try manual focusing with that. My one challenge still is to come up with a decent manual focus workflow.
Cheers,
Tom
doncraig
07-28-2012, 03:23
Sausalitodog, you might find my post (http://doncraigphoto.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/focus-with-fuji-x-cameras/) interesting regarding "automated manual focus.".
Also, my M-mount adapter tests with a 50mm Summilux, 28mm Ultron and 90mm CV has proven to me how great the Fujinon lenses are. So, I have a pristine 28mm f1.9 Ultron for sale, if you're interested. ;-)
As for which camera best? Come on... :bang:
The results of an M9 vs. X-Pro1 comparison are rather sensitively dependent on what ISO one is shooting at. Things are not as clear-cut as you make them out to be.
The results of an M9 vs. X-Pro1 comparison are rather sensitively dependent on what ISO one is shooting at. Things are not as clear-cut as you make them out to be.
I'm not making anything out to be clear-cut.
I was pointing out the futility of asking "Is the Fuji X Pro 1 overall a better digital camera than the M8?"
I'd say yes, without question -- the X-Pro1 is markedly superior to the M8 or M9 for my purposes. But my applications and preferred working style might be considerably different than yours. There is no "best" except within the contexts of user and application.
...There is no "best" except within the contexts of user and application.
Now you get it! :)
^--Ah, yes, I misconstrued what you'd written. All is clear. :D
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.